What are we losing by keeping the game PEGI 13+?

[Vain.3805]

No.

 

I have enough games that would make my kids cry and ask "did that guy's head just explode?!".  I have sensitive kids and I value their innocence more than yet another adult game that can't be adult without buckets of blood on my screen and explicit content.

[TSCavalier.8053]

For all of the truly positive progressive trends in "western" culture today, there's a huge amount of easily-accessible content that is damaging to the psychological development of children in our culture, and probably to society at large.

On one hand, we are attempting to purge gender and racial bias and discrimination from society. On the other hand, popular entertainment is packed with gore-filled violence, unrealistic/fantastical consequence-free sexual content, and inflammatory and offensive speech.

Most kids (and some adults) are not psychologically mature enough to compartmentalize that content and not allow it to color their perceptions and world view. It manifests in using inappropriate language in real-life situations, having unrealistic expectations in interpersonal relationships, and in extreme cases, thinking that challenges in life are best dealt with by going on a violent rampage.

The more realistically this is depicted in games, the more normative it becomes in a child's mind. Most kids/people can see the difference between fantasy and reality, but a lot of fantasy starts looking a whole lot like reality when you see things in realistic-looking entertainment... or even worse... actual news videos.

I'm well (well) beyond being a "kid" (having a few of my own), but one of the things that I enjoy most about GW2 is that its level of fantasy... aside from the basic fantasy trope of killing nameless monsters and taking their stuff... tends to take the good parts of progressive society and leaves out the bad stuff. I play GW2 because it does have a measure of innocence to it, and is a nice escape from the gore, lewdness, and language of much of pop-culture entertainment.

[tilapia.8704]

I agree. It would be nice if we had more blood. Its okay though, I just go play Diablo for that.

[Doggie.3184]

dismemberment with ragdoll physics

Edited September 12, 2022 by Doggie.3184

[TSCavalier.8053]

I forget what they are called, but there are those pod-like Risen things that become a fountain of green and black gore-barf when they die. 

Just find some of those and stand in the middle of them when they die to satisfy your splatter-fest needs. 😁

[Vyr.9387]

6 hours ago, TSCavalier.8053 said:

...

Most kids (and some adults) are not psychologically mature enough to compartmentalize that content and not allow it to color their perceptions and world view. It manifests in using inappropriate language in real-life situations, having unrealistic expectations in interpersonal relationships, and in extreme cases, thinking that challenges in life are best dealt with by going on a violent rampage.

The more realistically this is depicted in games, the more normative it becomes in a child's mind. Most kids/people can see the difference between fantasy and reality, but a lot of fantasy starts looking a whole lot like reality when you see things in realistic-looking entertainment... or even worse... actual news videos.

...

Hasn't the proposed link between video games and increased violence been disproven almost every time it's gotten studied?
More tiny-human lives are being ruined by parents yelling at or beating each other - or them - than seeing blood on screen.
But, of course, if you make a 3 years-old play Doom daily, it might be reasonable to expect that their first solution to a problem will always be to rip and tear.

Besides, the initial idea of the topic is discussing PEGI-13 as the baseline, which is - in the majority of cases, I'd assume - an age where a human being is already capable of perceiving differences between virtual and real well enough. Being able to enjoy the game with a younger audience than that is entirely on the shoulders of anybody who decides to do so, and shouldn't be a concern of ANet while making decisions. It's like complaining that the previous waiter always gave you a drink for free with your meal.

As a personal anecdote, I've been gaming since 7, and if indiscriminate murder taught me anything besides its counterproductivity, it's that "It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."
But, then again, it is an anecdote, and most people keep pointing at me as an outcast to this day, so... mileage may vary.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Vyr.9387
Using "able" twice; eww.

[Labjax.2465]

1 hour ago, Vyr.9387 said:

Hasn't the proposed link between video games and increased violence been disproven almost every time it's gotten studied?
More tiny-human lives are being ruined by parents yelling at or beating each other - or them - than seeing blood on screen.
But, of course, if you make a 3 years-old play Doom daily, it might be reasonable to expect that their first solution to a problem will always be to rip and tear.

Besides, the initial idea of the topic is discussing PEGI-13 as the baseline, which is - in the majority of cases, I'd assume - an age where a human being is already capable of perceiving differences between virtual and real well enough. Being able to enjoy the game with a younger audience than that is entirely on the shoulders of anybody who decides to do so, and shouldn't be a concern of ANet while making decisions. It's like complaining that the previous waiter always gave you a drink for free with your meal.

As a personal anecdote, I've been gaming since 7, and if indiscriminate murder taught me anything besides its counterproductivity, it's that "It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have."
But, then again, it is an anecdote, and most people keep pointing at me as an outcast to this day, so... mileage may vary.

It was... dang, prob almost ten years ago I ever looked into it closely, but from what I remember back then, the studies showed that racing games actually increased physiological signs related to aggression more noticeably than so-called violent video games.

That said, I have no personal love for gore splatter and all that, but I'm not worried that people who do are gonna hurt me either. I'm sure it does have some kind of influence, but what that influence is, I'm not sure is clear. I mean, I loved KOTOR back in the day (I was a teenager when I first played it) it never made me want to go hurt people for real, despite having the option to play as the baddy bad (and I did play as the baddiest bad that ever did bad sometimes). I think I understood pretty well that the fantasy of what I was doing was not the same thing as doing something like that in RL.

I think where stuff can cross a line most distinctly is when the writing is trying a bit too hard to justify a character's actions, even if they are bad. I think you could reach a point with that where it's just straight up propaganda to give people screwed up values. I have mixed feelings about shows like Breaking Bad for that reason. It's very effective at getting some people to sympathize with the trajectory of someone they'd likely never otherwise even considering sympathizing with.

I do think there's a time and place for teaching that the baddies often justify their actions to themselves, without the writing actively supporting their justifications, but that's another thing.